Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure

From: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@metafoo.de>,
	"Sumit Semwal" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
	"Vinod Koul" <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, "Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>,
	"Michael Hennerich" <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:06:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aac82ce15a49c5e4b939a69229b9a8a51ca00f5d.camel@crapouillou.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d6bef39c-f940-4097-8ca3-0cf4ef89a743@amd.com>

Hi Christian,

Le lundi 29 janvier 2024 à 13:52 +0100, Christian König a écrit :
> Am 27.01.24 um 17:50 schrieb Jonathan Cameron:
> > > > > +	iio_buffer_dmabuf_put(attach);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +out_dmabuf_put:
> > > > > +	dma_buf_put(dmabuf);
> > > > As below. Feels like a __free(dma_buf_put) bit of magic would
> > > > be a
> > > > nice to have.
> > > I'm working on the patches right now, just one quick question.
> > > 
> > > Having a __free(dma_buf_put) requires that dma_buf_put is first
> > > "registered" as a freeing function using DEFINE_FREE() in
> > > <linux/dma-
> > > buf.h>, which has not been done yet.
> > > 
> > > That would mean carrying a dma-buf specific patch in your tree,
> > > are you
> > > OK with that?
> > Needs an ACK from appropriate maintainer, but otherwise I'm fine
> > doing
> > so.  Alternative is to circle back to this later after this code is
> > upstream.
> 
> Separate patches for that please, the autocleanup feature is so new
> that 
> I'm not 100% convinced that everything works out smoothly from the
> start.

Separate patches is a given, did you mean outside this patchset?
Because I can send a separate patchset that introduces scope-based
management for dma_fence and dma_buf, but then it won't have users.

Cheers,
-Paul